Meet Wendy Davis, the Democrats' New Superstar

No matter the outcome of last night's Texas legislative debate, it was clear to everyone watching that the world of politics had found itself a new hero in Wendy Davis, the tennis-shoe wearing, abortion-law filibustering State Senator who became a literal overnight sensation.

No matter the outcome of last night's Texas legislative debate, it was clear to everyone watching that the world of politics had found itself a new hero in Wendy Davis, the tennis-shoe wearing, abortion-law filibustering State Senator who became a literal overnight sensation. Davis, who represents Texas's 10th Senate District, led the charge against the state's strict new abortion bill with an 11-hour marathon performance that had supporters echoing her name around the capitol dome.

Even if the bill somehow becomes law in the future, she already won a huge battle for liberals, for women, and her party's fortunes. And with that victory comes notoriety and a rise in her own political prospects. Democrats who didn't even know her name two days ago are already looking to hand her a starting spot in their national roster. If you're a political operative looking for a star, there's a lot to like about the 50-year-old Davis.

For starters, there's her inspiring biography. Raised by a single mother, she became a single mother herself at just 19 years old, but still found time and energy to go from junior college to the top of her class at Texas Christian University and then graduate from Harvard Law School. She worked as lawyer in the Fort Worth area for several years, before joining the city council (while continuing to practice law, of course). In 2008, she knocked off a two-term Republican incumbent — the only incumbent to not get re-elected that year — to win a spot in the State Senate. Her office even survived a fire bombing during her re-election campaign last year. (Though that was probably unrelated to politics.)

That's a pretty good resumé, even before you get to her habit of making principled stands in the legislature. This wasn't even her first filibuster, either. In 2011, she "torpedoed" a budget battle (and forced a special legislative session) in a fight over the state's plan to slash public school budgets. That made her a major thorn in the side of Republicans and hero to always undermanned Democrats of Texas. Even back then, there were rumblings of a future run for governor. After last night, a statewide race will feels as inevitable as the "Game of Thrones" memes she inspired.

If she launched her campaign tomorrow, she'd have no problem filling the donation box, thanks to her legion of new fans that spreads far beyond Austin. (The same goes for Letitia Van de Putte, last night's other Democratic hero, who left her own father's funeral yesterday to give Davis her biggest assist.) The filibusterquickly became a win-win situation for Davis. If she made it through the 13 hours, she would kill the detested bill. If she lost in a valiant effort, it could only win more sympathy to the cause and draw ire down upon the state's bullying majority. Just as she rasied her own public profile, Republicans like Sen. Bill Zedler and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst managed to turn themselves into national villains.

There is no doubt that the procedural roadblocks (or dirty tricks, depending on who you ask) thrown up by the GOP actually helped her cause. When the news broke online that Davis was forced to yield the floor after more than 11 hours of speaking, that only galvanized her supporters and sucked in more viewers to the Texas Tribune's livestream of the hearing. More than 170,000 viewers tuned in at the peak of the drama, with many more following the action on Twitter. (Her own account went from about 1,200 followers on Monday to more than 60,000 today.)

If the dream of "turning Texas blue" is ever going to come to fruition, no one appears better positioned to lead the charge that Davis. She would face quite an uphill climb should she decide to challenge Rick Perry for the governorship or even go after a U.S. Senate seat, but now that she's on the national stage, even a spot in the U.S. House of Represenatives could make her a household name. (She faces her own re-election next year, but should be a huge favorite now if she decides to stay in her current job, even if the GOP makes her seat a target.) From there, it could be anything from a Cabinet position to a major judicial appointment to ... who knows?

No one knew who State Senator Obama was in 2003. Perry & Cornyn are both on the ballot next year and Wendy Davis is a star now.

For now, she'll join the Joaquin and Julio Julian Castro in the vanquard of the young new Texas Democrats, looking to win back the south from the GOP and will be one of the most sought after campaign-stop partners of 2014. (You might as well book her 2016 convention keynote right now.) Not many Democrats make it out of Texas to the national stage these days, but Davis the hard part is already done. For now, she can enjoy her victory and try to keep the momentum rolling into next year.

About the Author

Most Popular

The special counsel indicted the Russian nationals and three Russian entities for allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the Department of Justice announced Friday.

On Friday, February 16, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein announced that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, had indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities on charges that including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. This is the full text of that indictment.

Students have mourned and rallied the public after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High that left 17 dead.

Something was different about the mass shooting this week in Parkland, Florida, in which 14 students and three adults were killed.

It was not only the death toll. The mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High became the deadliest high-school shooting in American history (edging out Columbine, which killed 13 in 1999).

What made Parkland different were the people who stepped forward to describe it. High-school students—the survivors of the calamity themselves—became the voice of the tragedy. Tweets that were widely reported as coming from the students expressed grief for the victims, pushed against false reports, and demanded accountability.

Outrage mobs are chipping away at democracy, one meaningless debate at a time.

The mob was unusually vociferous, even for Twitter. After the California-born ice skater Mirai Nagasu became the first American woman to land a triple axel at the Olympics, the New York Times writer Bari Weiss commented “Immigrants: They get the job done.”

What followed that innocuous tweet was one of the sillier, manufactured controversies I have ever seen on Twitter. Twitter’s socially conscious denizens probably only realized they should be outraged at Weiss after they saw other people being outraged, as is so often the case. Outside of Twitter, some of Weiss’s Times colleagues were also offended by the tweet—and even hurt by it. The critics’objection was that Nagasu isn’t herself an immigrant, but rather the child of immigrants, and so calling her one was an example of “perpetual othering.”

Tech analysts are prone to predicting utopia or dystopia. They’re worse at imagining the side effects of a firm's success.

The U.S economy is in the midst of a wrenching technological transformation that is fundamentally changing the way people sleep, work, eat, shop, love, read, and interact.

At least, that’s one interpretation.

A second story of this age of technological transformation says that it’s mostly a facade—that the last 30 years have been a productivity bust and little has changed in everyday life, aside from the way everyone reads and watches videos. People wanted flying cars and got Netflix binges instead.

Let’s call these the Disrupt Story and the Dud Story of technology. When a new company, app, or platform emerges, it’s common for analysts to divide into camps—Disrupt vs. Dud—with some yelping that the new thing will change everything and others yawning with the expectation that traditionalism will win out.

The director Ryan Coogler's addition to the Marvel pantheon is a superb genre film—and quite a bit more.

Note: Although this review avoids plot spoilers, it does discuss the thematic elements of the film at some length.

After an animated introduction to the fictional African kingdom of Wakanda, Black Panther opens in Oakland in 1992. This may seem an odd choice, but it is in fact quite apt. The film’s director, Ryan Coogler, got his start in the city, having been born there in 1986. His filmmaking career has its roots there, too, as it was the setting for his debut feature, Fruitvale Station.

A bunch of schoolboys (a fictionalized young Coogler perhaps among them) play pickup hoops on a court with a milk-crate basket. But in the tall apartment building above them two black radicals are plotting a robbery. There’s a knock on the door and one of the men looks through the peephole: “Two Grace Jones–lookin’ chicks—with spears!” I won’t recount the rest of the scene, except to note that the commingling of two very different iterations of the term “Black Panther”—the comic-book hero and the revolutionary organization, ironically established just months apart in 1966—is in no way accidental, and it will inform everything that follows.

The clear goal of the special counsel is to speak to the American public about the seriousness of Russian interference.

With yet another blockbuster indictment (why is it always on a Friday afternoon?), Special Counsel Robert Mueller has, once again, upended Washington. And this time, it is possible that his efforts may have a wider effect outside the Beltway.

For those following the matter, there has been little doubt that Russian citizens attempted to interfere with the American presidential election. The American intelligence agencies publicized that conclusion more than a year ago in a report issued in January 2017, and it has stood by the analysis whenever it has been questioned. But some in the country have doubted the assertion—asking for evidence of interference that was not forthcoming.

Now the evidence has been laid out in painful detail by the special counsel. If any significant fraction of what is alleged in the latest indictment is true (and we should, of course, remind ourselves that an indictment is just an allegation—not proof), then this tale is a stunning condemnation of Russian activity. A Russian organization with hundreds of employees and a budget of millions of dollars is said to have systematically engaged in an effort (code named “Project Lakhta”) to undermine the integrity of the election and, perhaps more importantly, to have attempted to influence the election to benefit then-candidate Donald Trump. Among the allegations, the Russians:

The company’s unusual offer—to give employees up to $5,000 for leaving—may actually be a way to get them to stay longer.

On Monday, Amazon reportedly began a series of rare layoffs at its headquarters in Seattle, cutting several hundred corporate employees. But this week, something quite different is happening at the company’s warehouses and customer-service centers across the country: Amazon will politely ask its “associates”—full-time and part-time hourly employees—if they’d prefer to quit. And if they do, Amazon will pay them as much as $5,000 for walking out the door.

Officially called “The Offer,” this proposition is, according to Amazon, a way to encourage unhappy employees to move on. “We believe staying somewhere you don’t want to be isn’t healthy for our employees or for the company,” Ashley Robinson, an Amazon spokesperson, wrote to me in an email. The amount full-time employees get offered ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, and depends on how long they have been at the company; if they take the money, they agree to never work for Amazon again. (The idea for all this originated at Zappos, the online shoe retailer that Amazon bought in 2009.)

Like it or not, the middle class became global citizens through consumerism—and they did so at the mall.

“Okay, we’ll see you in two-and-a-half hours,” the clerk tells me, taking the iPhone from my hand. I’m at the Apple Store, availing myself of a cheap smartphone battery replacement, an offer the company made after taking heat for deliberately slowing down devices. A test run by a young woman typing at a feverish, unnatural pace on an iPad confirms that mine desperately needed the swap. As she typed, I panicked. What will I do in the mall for so long, and without a phone? How far the mall has fallen that I rack my brain for something to do here.

The Apple Store captures everything I don’t like about today’s mall. A trip here is never easy—the place is packed and chaotic, even on weekdays. It runs by its own private logic, cashier and help desks replaced by roving youths in seasonally changing, colored T-shirts holding iPads, directing traffic.

The Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig discusses how Aaron Swartz's death shaped his own life's work.

Before he started working with Aaron Swartz, the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig built his professional life around internet law and copyright policy. In the early 2000s, Lessig was at the top of his academic field, then working at Stanford. As an undergraduate student, Swartz, who had met Lessig at a computer conference when he was just 14, convinced the professor to radically change his career path.

The two developed a mentorship and partnership that would lead them to take on the complex goals of making information more accessible and demanding greater transparency from political institutions. Swartz became known for his involvement in Creative Commons and Reddit, and for his alleged attempt to make information from the academic-research site JSTOR free for public viewing. And then, in January of 2013, Swartz committed suicide. Lessig is still reeling from the loss.

Leggings and yoga gear are common sights at practice rinks. But in competition, gender-coded costumes still prevail.

Last weekend, one of the buzzier stories out of the Olympic ladies’ figure skating short program competition was one you might call … surprisingly surprising. The French figure skater Maé-Bérénice Méité made headlines: for the fact that she skated to a Beyoncé medley, and even more so, for the fact that she did it in pants.

More accurately, she did it in a bedazzled black unitard, but that didn’t stop news outlets and viewers on Twitter from pointing out Méité’s eye-catching, subtly subversive pants. “This French figure skater may not have won a medal, but her pants took people's choice,” raved Yahoo! News, and AOL named Méité’s bodysuit to its list of “most dazzling figure skating outfits” of these Olympic Games.